Sentences with phrase «ethical argument which»

He offers a historic, legal and ethical argument which is miles above those from his colleagues.

Not exact matches

It exhibits a stubborn refusal to acknowledge merit in any sociological, historical, philosophical, medical, psychological, ethical, or biological arguments which might challenge and chasten its pet orthodoxies.

But the meta - ethical character of moral discourse can not itself be the criterion in terms of which sound and unsound moral arguments can be distinguished in or through discourse.

C. S. Lewis» recognition of a fact - value dichotomy within an argument against ethical subjectivism in The Abolition of Man has no doubt contributed something to the frequency with which «values» is used by both Catholics and Protestants who want to defend «traditional values.»

So these «internal» arguments against free will theism are purely ad hominem, drawing upon ethical views that free will theists are thought to accept but which need not be shared by the process theist making the argument.

Even if they find a way around the arguments for a legal obligation, there is a strong ethical case which they would be advised not to spurn - particularly as the cameraman hired, Danny Dewsbury, is a student in substantial debt.

There's a surprising focus on the hypothetical ethical arguments that would arise should human iPSCs be made into function eggs and sperm (which has not been done yet, and may not even be possible).

Arguments about the national curriculum, to some, has too much focus on these «general capabilities», which include skills like critical and creative thinking, ethical behaviours, personal and social skills and intercultural understanding.

But I noted that the core of the film is still about humans» relationship with other species, and that the fundamental ethical arguments about which we choose to kill, and how we kill them, are still a prime challenge — whether we're discussing bison or dolphin or the great whales being shot with exploding harpoons at sea.

And so if climate change raises civilization challenging ethical questions which imply duties, responsibilities, and obligations what questions should the press ask opponents of climate change policies when they make economic and scientific arguments against climate change policies?

Although we can not predict specific impacts of geoengineering with much confidence, we can fruitfully consider the conditions under which geoengineering research would be justified (or not), and ethical theory provides a wealth of resources to sift through the value judgments that arguments for (or against) research inevitably involve.

In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction by developed countries by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US law not on what is required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.

It seems to me that both Steve and Bart have omitted the argument which the vast majority of careful, ethical and diligent scientists would make:

This topic is enormously practically important because nations and others who argue against proposed climate change policies usually rely on various economic arguments which often completely ignore the ethical and justice limitations of these arguments (In the case of the United States, see Brown, 2012.)

What distinguishes ethical issues from economic and scientific arguments about climate change is that ethics is about duties, obligations, and responsibilities to others while economic and scientific arguments are usually understood to be about «value - neutral» «facts» which once established have usually been deployed in arguments against action on climate change based upon self - interest.

The site could be improved if it included a reference to the IPCC discussion in Chapters 3 and 4 of Working Group III's recent report which, among other things, identifies ethical limitations of economic arguments about climate policies and only a limited number of considerations that should be considered in determining what equity means.

Meanwhile, the argument for drastic carbon reduction and lifestyle change is principally ethical: it claims that matters of fact exist, which dictate the terms and limits that society must respond to, or else we will face catastrophe.